Blog comments
August 27, 2008
It’s hard to view comments on a blog article through the eyes of the commenter. A recent post on Riverside Rambles, written by Joan Ryan, a regular and very thoughtful commenter, offers some delightful insights into the psyche of a blog commenter.
The commenting person’s need for validation is an interesting point. I wonder if women, in general, feel a greater need to be validated than do men. I would like to think that I, being a man, don’t really care what other readers may or may not think about my comments. I give it my best shot and let the chips fall where they may. Am I kidding myself?
Is the smiley face necessary to avoid word bombs? Again, I would like to think that clear English prose should be sufficient. Since blogging seems to encourage sloppy writing, perhaps the smiley has a place, but I try to avoid using these cutesy things as much as I can. I certainly agree with Joan’s main point that most of us don’t want to unnecessarily offend our readers. I confess, though, that sometimes I want to offend in hopes of getting a response.
I believe we shy away from communicating religious viewpoints because they deal with the Big Issues that are important to us. I want people to know how I am grappling with life’s important questions. I may be on the right track, or I may be totally wrong, but it’s my track, and it seems important that you, the reader, at least understand where I am coming from. Whether you agree or not is your business. My goal is to write without rant. Who can object to that?
Dave, grinning, ducking, and running.
Comments
13 Responses to “Blog comments”
Got something to say?
I’m glad you read and enjoyed Joan’s essay, Dad! She has been a long-time supporter of my blog and her comments have often inspired me to write more.
I also flirt with offense in the hope of goading lurking readers to respond; I’ll exaggerate my views a bit, like baiting a hook with an especially succulent insect larva.
Comments are a form of validation; I like to get them, but sometimes a post will not garner a single response. That’s okay, I’ll just write another! One particularly intriguing aspect of writing for a blog is how a post which I assume won’t get any comments will sometimes attract many, and vice versa.
I think of a blog as a slow-motion textual party. At real-life parties good conversations and discussions sometimes arise while at other times they don’t, and there is no predicting one way or the other. Just part of the charm of human interaction!
I don’t often (enough) think of “charm” and “human interaction” belonging in the same sentence, but that’s my problem. Interesting thought.
P.S. Your RSS feed still is not working.
First of all, Thankee kindly, Mr. Orlop for putting me in a link. This is so exciting! This is my very first true link and I can’t even frame it and put it on the wall.
Your questions! Oboy ! Now you got me started. You will be sooo sorry.
Do women need to be ‘validated’ more than men? Maybe. More than writers? Maybe not. If writers are truly honest, they will say needing validation is a gender free zone. We all want it. Else, why not just write a diary and not a blog? But in everyday life, usually yes! It’s a different kind of validation in life than perhaps in writing. Homebound women might get validated only from family and friends. The neat(er) than yesterday housekeeping and the finally un-burned casserole might garner a small grunt of approval, but usually not. Writing at least is somewhat concrete, until the next computer crash or house-fire. As for ‘just move on’, Larry, some of us are slow movers. Blogging is a lot more intense to the occasional guest blogger. When one puts a little chunk of one’s creativity on the blog only to be left with that dreadful hanging chad of zero, one experiences the downside of the instant gratification of blogging, along with the sneaking suspicion that most loyal Larryites are saying “Oh no! Not her again!” On the whole, if I flunk “Comments” it’s not so readily apparent. Some comments are obviously not meant to be interactive. Admittedly comments in Larry’s infinite variety blog are uniquely fertile. I’m betting only the New York Times op Eds receive more. “Rambles” comment interaction, however is pretty fluid and this is the way many of us women get our ‘attagirls’. It’s the “me too” factor. That warm glow of “Wow! You feel like that also?” We like to feel good about ourselves and we like others to. We are not sucking up to fellow commenters. We really do mean it.
As for the validation situation and the way we relate to one another, men and women are not only different, they are indeed sometimes from another planet. Yes, we would like to win an argument now and then, provocateur, Larry, but women tend to be more socially (and blabbily) interactive, and group cooperation oriented. Men are competitive and one-ups-manship oriented. They are goal driven to the point where they often lack nuance. “Just gimme the facts, mam! “. “ Will you get to the point!” We are experience oriented. We relate by saying “‘Oh! I had that happen! I can understand where you are coming from.” And then, sadly we often natter along, boring the heck out of guys by relating said experience in infinite detail.
As for the ‘respect’ type validation, one might ask the current Clintonites why they are still so ticked off. Could it be because they are still waiting since women got the vote in 1920 to be considered Presidential material? On the everyday living scale they are also still waiting in the workplace to get equal pay without having to go broke suing for it. Maybe they thought Hillary would be the next Eleanor Roosevelt.
Now on to the annoying smiley faces and the ubiquitous (grins) I employ way too often. These are cloying, rarely used by men, but truly essential to some e-mails or on-line chats. I’d rather look stupid than be misunderstood as being serious when I was spoofing. When one does not know of this person’s wry sarcastic humor, one could really get the wrong idea. I totally lost a good e-friend that way. Nothing I could ever say would convince the person that I meant no vitriol. There is no nuance in e-mail. In fact there is little interaction in much e-mail of my contemporaries, who are ‘of an age’. Their letters are read-only announcements of activities, eliciting no interest whatsoever in experiences the reader might have had. They are smaller versions of the Xmas letter. But, hey! We take what we can get. It’s better than an empty e-box. And it’s a kind of validation.
Thanks so much for your further thoughts, Joan.
I am certainly no authority on communicating with anyone. My weapons of communication were the slide rule and engineering notebook, which, I guess, is sort of like communicating with myself.
Come to think of it, yesterday’s engineering notebook or diary is today’s blog.
At this point I will bow my head and slink off the stage and give myself a good talking to. If no one is listening is it still speech? Am I still validated? (Am I nuts?)
How pleasing to read these comments between my father and my most faithfull commenter Joan, whom I have never met in the “meatspace” world.
The funny thing about blogs is that there is probably someone listening out there. Lurkers abound — and I’ve been one myself. Sometimes all they need is a sharp goose to their mental behind, or even a direct appeal (to which I’ve been known to resort) in order to induce them to comment.
I know of several family lurkers who are too lazy to chime in.
In answer to Mr. Orlop about speech . I think it’s like a tree falling in the woods, and I’m just nutzy enough to think it makes a sound even if nobody hears it. Even if we are only talking to ourselves we validate the fact that we are alive and kicking and still thinking. A voice crying in the wilderness is still a voice. But..hardcopy is essential, as far as I’m concerned.
Ah, the ubiquitous slide rule. How familiar, and how endearing. At least 2 of my boyfriends sported slide rules. It was a real sign of ‘cool’ ness. And when they did talk, they actually had things to say other than football scores. With men perhaps it’s quality of speech and not quantity . Women certainly are there with the quantity. (grin)
To Larry. I sincerely hope you meant “meetspace.” As for commenting, some of these blogs are just so far above my intellectual capacity or so far beyond my experiences, that, although they are fun to read, I find it impossible to craft a comment that does not sound like “ibbity ibbity.”. So It’s not always possible to goose the ungooseable, especially if the person feels that he’d be a goose to comment.
Ah, yes: To hardcopy or not to hardcopy. I feel a new blog post coming on.
ahem….. not lazy! I chime in via email, for my preferred one on one… sometimes. Interesting comments on the need for validation, more later on that. I actually have an article that is being considered for publication in a national magazine. Lucky for me it’s a mag none of my family members would even dream of picking up, and it’ll be under a pen name to boot. So ha…… how does that work for my need for validation?
Hey, Joan, love your pharse, “goose the ungooseable” And Larry, please no sharp gooses to my goose behind! er… mental behind…
Hi Linda,
I’m informed that you, as sister of Larry are another of the L’literation children of The Orlop. (grin) Ok, here I have to side with your Dad. Personally I’d be ever so grateful to even get an e-mail from either of my “boys”, but it’s an earthshaking event to hear comments from my kids via Larry’s blog whenever I’m lucky enough to get a post up there. (After all, the reader hopefully doesn’t know how much whining I did to get da boys to comment. ) It’s a double validation kudo when your kids say nice things. To me, it says “looky here! I bred kids who are literate and even like me for something other than my chocolate cake or the Christmas gift check.” I further maintain that we are all needy. Well, parents and kids, and dogs, of course; cat’s, not so much.
Now as for my parents reading something I wrote which they most profoundly did not believe in, had little interest in or would offend them, I hear you. I don’t have to deal with that anymore, since from down here I can’t hear my parents’ gritting their teeth in the Hereafter. Could be another reason that I’m sort of hoping there is no Hereafter.
Joan! Me thinks you misunderstood… the email discussion of my dad’s blog… goes to my dad! And yeah, I need validation, social interaction. You have to remember one thing and cut me some slack. My formative years were forever altered by having Larry as a big brother. My sisters and I forever bask in the shadow of his superior intellect. And yes, he’s just plain weird. Can you imagine him at age 13 with me a little 10 year old wondering if what he said could possibly be true? Oh, do I have stories! At age 10 Larry was reading the Encyclopedia Brittania, just sitting in a corner poring over the prose and pictures. I remember distinctly when he told me that he chose the Q volume hoping it might be more enticing than say… the common B or S volume.
BTW, (=; (that’s for you dad, double cutsie) Joan, I do enjoy your poetry and comments. We could form a mutual validation club!
Just plain weird, Linda? I’ll take that as a compliment, if you don’t mind!
Now I’m all curious about the stories you have about our shared upbringing.
I’m glad you have enjoyed Joan’s contributions, Linda. I’m happy to provide a forum for her writings. She writes killer e-mails, too!
Ok Linda, I just thought that you wrote e-mail about the Orlop to your Dad instead of commenting on the blog. Certainly the natural thing to do but still it’s doubly nice when a comment shows up on the blog which reveals that you read it. That way your Dad can show off your comment and his kid at the same time. I think that goes for Siblings too. Ol’ brilliant Larry doth protest his immunity to no comments a little too much, methinks.
If I wasn’t born “attagirl deprived”, I learned pretty quickly not to troll for approval. In our family something like “I got an A on two subjects today” might be met with ‘don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back.” Either it was a strange generation ..or I was born in a strange gene pool. Nowadays , It’s nice to see people who are happy for other people.
As for men not needing validation. Hogwash. If women are considered the gritchy felines of our species..then that leaves the guys as the canines.. My boy kids perfected ‘puppy eyes’ to the max to work me.. and even when it didn’t then the resultant laughter would loosen me up.
Oh..Congrats on your article.. whenever it appears ..and be sure to post the secret pseudonym somewhere so we can read it. If you are not a mathmatical scientist..I might just understand it. (grin)